Take heart MRAs; history is on our side. We may not see substantial success in our lifetimes, but give civilization enough time to develop and female preference will be regarded as backward as racial preference. Sociobiology suggests that gender feminism is akin to racism. Both are derived from our deep evolutionary past in order to give an advantage to the groups that practice it over those that do not.
The use of brain scanners has provided support for the evolutionary psychology of moral decision making. Certain triggers are seen to elicit activity in mainly the older emotional areas of the brain, whilst scenarios not related to our evolution are processed more in the higher cognitive areas. When confronted with issues with an evolutionary imperative, such as sex and violence, subjects whose moral position aligned with an ancient evolutionary imperative displayed activity mainly in their lower emotional brain. Conversely, subjects who considered the consequences and utility of their moral decisions utilized mainly their higher cognitive faculties [1].
Hardly surprising, but very important. This is evidence that, far from what traditional moralists would have us believe, when it comes to sex and violence: it is not at all their finer moral or religious sensibilities, nor their superior reasoning skills, that inevitably lead them to concur so fundamentally with pre-historic humans on modern manners. No. It’s their most base emotive reaction, which is largely devoid of reasoned considerations.
It will come as no surprise to MRAs that the heart-felt rightness that many feminists feel for female preference is an unthinking emotional response derived from our deep evolutionary past. It is the same reason why racism just feels to be the obvious and correct sentiment for too many people.
Only after emotional determination are higher order rationalizations employed to justify that response [2]. This is why a feminist will claim that there are reasons for female preference: e.g. men are stronger than women; yet remain unmoved by a particular case where the woman is stronger than the man, or where strength is irrelevant. Similarly, when all evidence necessitates compassion for a male rather than a female, it will automatically be bestowed on the female instead. By the primitive brain regions and then justified ad hoc, if at all. It is an emotional response, not a rational one. In the modern world, this is as inappropriate as racism.
Importantly, in the case of racism, we can intellectually override this base emotional drive in order to relate to each other in a multicultural world. But think back to the times, not so long ago, when racism was not only approved but mandatory. There was a time when if you were not a racist, there was something wrong with you. We now realize that we can longer afford such unreasoned and hateful indulgences, as the alternative is conflict. Yet we are not so civilized as to apply the same intellectual override to our base evolutionary preference for females. We will ignore this at our peril.
This does however, hold out hope. For if primitive racist tendencies can be overridden by a cognitive process through self examination, education, and logical thought then there exists the possibility that the innate preference for females can also be intellectually reevaluated and diminished on a mass scale. Equality of the sexes may be our best measure of civilization. If this is so, we’re in trouble. It is as if having progressed well down the road rejecting racism, we do an about face and now embrace it wholeheartedly. This is what has happened to sexual equality. It is being reversed.
Evolution gave us our prejudiced base traits. Civilization and education can free us. How are we doing? Progress on racial prejudice is advancing; but slowly. The ubiquity, persistence, and stubbornness of racism around the world attest to its biological and social power. It is likely that sexual prejudice is even more powerful, as it has not only favored group selection, but also individual selection. Social reinforcement and modification by the power groups (state & church) for the benefit of power groups wraps it all up nicely.
Why do we pay politicians and judges so much when, for the most important human rights issues, they use their lowest, reptilian faculties and revert to being a simple, reactive, emotional blob? It is because society itself is still largely reptilian in relation to sex. This does not bode well for the future.
It is not just sex and race where we are so uncivilized. Deference to power may be another negative evolutionary throw-back to a primitive past. This may explain the resilience of corrupt political donations and practices, public indifference and acceptance of police brutality and corruption, and as some have pointed out – celebrity culture. Deference to power; be it political, sexual or reproductive is not a viable long term strategy.
Deference to powerful people and females is primitive and uncivilized; because in the modern world there are no good reasons for it. Eons ago, when we lived in small groups, respecting a leader and protecting the group’s reproductive capacity had an evolutionary advantage. This is no longer the case. Today, deference for the powerful only encourages and protects their corruption and the resultant harm visited upon the people. Deference for females promotes overpopulation, underachievement, and waste. As well, both constitute an offence against the rights of the average male.
The future will only see the differences between the sexes become ever more diminished in importance, via technology and the irresistible desire for equality. Why then do gender feminists insist on an ever more genderized world? A world with more and more laws and customs based on sex? It doesn’t make sense unless seen as a further power grab by the powerful. It is antithetical to the civilizing project of releasing us from the tyranny of our genes and a threat to us all. MRAs: civilization is calling. Feminists are the racists of the future.
[1] Greene, J. From neural ‘is’ to moral ‘ought’: what are the moral implications of neuroscientific moral psychology? Nature Reviews. Neuroscience. Vol. 4 Oct. 2003. pp. 947-950
[2] Hite, J. The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment. Psychological Review. 2001. Vol. 108. No. 4 pp. 814-834
